Calling a woman judge—now an associate justice of this court—‘attractive,’ as [the defendant] does twice at the outset of his reply brief, is inappropriate because it is both irrelevant and sexist. This is true whether intended as a compliment or not. Such comments would not likely have been made about a male judge. …
Objectifying or demeaning a member of the profession, especially when based on gender, race, sexual preference, gender identity, or other such characteristics, is uncivil and unacceptable. Moreover, the comments in the brief demean the serious business of this court. We review judgments and judicial rulings, not physical or other supposed personal characteristics of superior court judges. …
[A]s judicial officers, we can and should take steps to help reduce incivility, including gender-based incivility. One method is by calling gendered incivility out for what it is and insisting it not be repeated.
— Associate Justice Brian Currey of California’s Second District Court of Appeal, with Associate Justices Thomas Willhite Jr. and Audrey Collins concurring, in an opinion calling out courtroom sexism and sexism in the legal profession at large after an attorney referred to now-Associate Justice Gail Ruderman Feuer, who was a Los Angeles Superior Court judge at the time, as “an attractive, hard-working, brilliant, young, politically well-connected judge on a fast track for the California Supreme Court or Federal Bench” in his brief. While the attorney in question claimed he was attempting to compliment the judge, the court concluded that his comments “reflect[ed] gender bias and disrespect for the judicial system” nonetheless.
(Flip to the next page to read the opinion in full.)
Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.